Crime & Punishment

Funds got a bit tight after B-R but the RMT is flowing again so they'll be back.

I don't believe this myself but Gevlon's blog is a tome of some considerable wisdom upon which I have based this conclusion.



Moving ships? It's precisely because highsec offers immunity to alliance logistics that it should be reasonably viable to do it. Unless CCP decide you can only fly a freighter/JF in highsec if it's in a corp of 10+ members for a week, you'll forever see neutral alts operating in highsec with immunity to their enemies. We do it, everyone does it. Miniluv deliberately targets freighters in highsec where we know it belongs to an enemy, and I can tell you the grind to fix your sec status / etc is tedious as all get out.
Arguing that people should be punished (via endless tedium) for attacking enemies of theirs in a PVP game is one of the bad arguments that shows you're thinking 'entrenched eve logic' and not 'how it should be' logic.

I'm going to guess a blog post where you change your victory conditions (again) and claim victory (again).

We were broken men after reading the first please don't do it again please.

Yes this is all nice and dandy, pretty impressive actually. And I mean that in all honesty.

But what is it to me, a humble highsec dweller? This affects me as much as the sack of rice that fell over in China. Ok, it allowed for some nice rice mineral speculation; thanks to both sides for the easy ISKies. Buy moar capital armor plates, will ya!

So forgive me if I find someone trying to shoot you out of highsec, my little realm, a tad more intriguing than things happening in a land far, far away.

I agree, but the question remains why call upon allies and risk to alienate them when you don't need them. Do they actually need help? RvB stated before that it would be better for their own gameplay to be more like Switzerland and all the propaganda aside it looks a little bit like they are letting themself get used.

Thanks for calling me veryy smart

yeah except we're the united states of america and gevlon is busy trying to sabotage people in Tanzania because he can't afford a plane ticket over here

I'm not arguing people should be actively punished for "shooting their enemies", I'm arguing that there should be more consequences to such actions. Gankers get the benefit of neutral alts as well as anyone else, so that's not a benefit other players are getting over them.

The thing is, what I see chanted all over the community is that actions have consequences. Well ganking barely does. Once you are at -10 you can still keep ganking forever and other than racking up killrights (which you can just unsub your account and wait to expire) nothing will change no matter how much you gank. IMHO, sec status penalties need to be made worse in the higher ends of high sec with pirate stations in low and npc null granting benefits.

But that's all off topic

Edit:
Oh and just to make it clear, I also think that corp killing in high sec should be removed or changed to an option. Now I know what your thinking "CAREBEARRRRRRRRRR" but no, quite the opposite. I think that's a barrier to people making and joining corps in high sec. I'd never invite anyone into any of my alt corps and would never join a high sec corp on my alts purely because you can't control when some green awoxer will gank you, so i think that encourages people to stay in NPC corps or just make a 1 man corp if they want no mission tax.

On top of that I think NPC corp tax should extend to cover things like market purchases and sales, refining, manufacture (with a different %), and I think you should be able to wardec against an individual (with the same rules for deccing corps/alliances and what have you, so if you want to war dec a non-npc corp player, you wardec his corp).

If you want to expand an analogy, it would be equivelent to the US sending a humvee with 5 guys in it to stop the villagers from digging up a US pipeline.
Ultimately a rounding error on the balance sheet to the US, but seemingly all the villagers care about.

Gevlon claims victory when rvb leaves the war, then claims victory when rvb gets back into the war. Color me confused.

Post #1004 in this thread.

Thanks God that Goons can't care less what highsec pubbies do.

They already have a treaty, and while RvB aren't required to help, they are willing to and would further reduce the time and risk involved. In realism this whole "RvB are pets and N3 will tell them to stop" stuff is all in Gevlon's head. Nobody in null much cares who they choose to make a deal with, least of which a high sec deal. PL make multiple deals with us, and N3 still happily had them along. It's just the way null politics go.
RvB get stuff to shoot out of this and all the time they are happy to do that, chances are they will. To say they are being used is saying they are weak enough to be able to get used like that, which I don't think is the case. The treaty is fair and beneficial to both parties, and I think they've considered the options and chosen this one actively, which is fair enough.